Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the output structure (jurisdiction, EU member, overlay) and notes UK/GB handling, but does not mention error behavior, validation, or edge cases such as invalid ship-to formats. The description adds some nuance but lacks comprehensive behavioral transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes essential examples. Every piece of information (input examples, output components, UK/GB nuance) earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description adequately explains the mapping and a notable edge case (UK/GB). It does not cover error handling or case sensitivity, but the output schema likely handles return values. It is reasonably complete for a simple resolution tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for the only parameter (ship_to), so the description must compensate. It does so by providing concrete examples (e.g., 'US-CA', 'CA-ON') and explaining the mapping to jurisdiction, which adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema. While not exhaustive on formats or case sensitivity, it covers the core semantics well.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('ship-to' to jurisdiction), with concrete examples and an explicit list of output components. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like resolve_actor by focusing on jurisdiction resolution.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on what the tool does and what inputs to use, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., resolve_actor). The usage is implied rather than stated with exclusions or conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.